Judge Buchwald

Subscribe to Judge Buchwald

In an order yesterday, in a case involving two people who were formerly in a relationship and who now accuse one another of battery (among many other things), Judge Buchwald resolved various discovery disputes with a warning against “irrelevant invective”:

As the Court’s rulings demonstrate, these motions would have been unnecessary if counsel had conducted themselves in a more professional manner. The inclusion of any kernel of a meritorious argument in the briefing was in danger of being obscured by the amount of irrelevant invective. Indeed, the constant bombardment of the Court with such irrelevant invective makes defendant’s frequent refrain about the imposition on counsel’s time and his client’s resources ring hollow. Counsel are reminded once again, as the Court did early on, about the need to maintain objectivity and a professional distance from their clients.

…
Continue Reading Judge Buchwald Warns Counsel Against “Irrelevant Invective” and Fruitless Motion Practice

In the ongoing case regarding whether President Trump can block individual Twitter users under the First Amendment (see our previous coverage here), the Second Circuit earlier this week affirmed Judge Buchwald’s earlier ruling that the president’s Twitter account is a public forum and that blocking individual users represented unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
…
Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Judge Buchwald in Trump Twitter Case

This week, Judge Buchwald dismissed a complaint against Tootsie Roll Industries, makers of the candy Junior Mints, claiming that packages of Junior Mints contained “non-functional slack-fill” which mislead consumers as to the amount of product contained in the package.

Judge Buchwald noted that the labeling on the package, including the estimated servings in each package, could alert a reasonable consumer how much of the product was in each package:…
Continue Reading Judge Buchwald: No “Coddling” of Plaintiffs in Suit Over Junior Mints

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Buchwald found that President Trump’s practice of blocking users on Twitter (typically after they post a comment critical of the President) violates the First Amendment. The plaintiffs (who included individual users as well as the Knight First Amendment Institute) claimed that preventing them from viewing comments, replying to tweets, and participating in comment threads denies access to an important public forum in the 21st century (see our initial coverage here).

After finding that the plaintiffs had standing, Judge Buchwald determined that the President’s Twitter account was appropriately analyzed as a public forum.  Judge Buchwald reasoned that the account is subject to government control for First Amendment purposes in part because President Trump has used the account “to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President.”  Judge Buchwald then determined that the President may not block users on Twitter based on their political views.  In doing so, she emphasized that blocking users goes further than merely “muting” them, insofar as blocking actually limits the blocked user’s “right to speak”:…
Continue Reading Judge Buchwald: Trump Can’t Block Twitter Users Under First Amendment

Last week, Judge Buchwald heard oral argument (see transcript here) on summary judgment motions in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J. Trump (see our previous coverage here). The suit alleges that President Trump and others violated the First Amendment when they blocked Twitter users who wrote tweets critical of the president.  The plaintiffs claim that preventing them from viewing comments, replying to tweets, and participating in comment threads denies access to an important public forum in the 21st century.
…
Continue Reading In Trump Twitter Case, Parties Dispute Whether President’s Tweets Are Government Action; Judge Buchwald Floats “Muting” Compromise

In an opinion Monday, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Buchwald’s dismissal of antitrust claims based on the alleged manipulation of LIBOR (covered here).  Judge Buchwald ruled that the process of establishing LIBOR was a “cooperative” endeavor that, even if manipulated, would not cause harm to competition for purposes of the antitrust laws.  The Second…

In a wide-ranging 433-page ruling yesterday, Judge Buchwald concluded (among many other things) that certain individual plaintiffs could bring fraud claims against banks they accuse of manipulating LIBOR.

The introduction of the opinion notes that the fraud claims present the plaintiffs, after four years of litigation, with a potential “comprehensive remedy”:…

Continue Reading Judge Buchwald Issues 433-Page Ruling Largely Allowing Individual LIBOR Fraud Cases to Proceed

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Schofield denied various banks’ motion to dismiss a price fixing case concerning a foreign exchange benchmark called the “Fix.” Notably, Judge Schofield distinguished her ruling from Judge Buchwald’s ruling dismissing a similar case concerning the LIBOR benchmark (covered here).  Judge Buchwald had ruled there could be no “antitrust injury” because LIBOR is set by banks acting “cooperative[ly]” (as opposed to acting as competitors) to estimate their borrowing costs, whereas, as Judge Schofield pointed out, banks establish the Fix by actual transactions. Judge Schofield went on to disagree with the LIBOR ruling, to the extent it could be read to require a showing, at the pleading stage, that the injury alleged could not have resulted from unilateral (as opposed to collusive) conduct:…
Continue Reading In Allowing Foreign Exchange Price-Fixing Case to Proceed, Judge Schofield Disagrees With Judge Buchwald’s LIBOR Ruling

In a motion yesterday, various banks involved in the multidistrict litigation relating to alleged LIBOR manipulation moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  They argue that LIBOR is set in set in London by foreign banks or foreign employees and, thus, the allegations lack a sufficient connection to the United States:…
Continue Reading Banks Challenge Jurisdiction in LIBOR Suits; Emphasize That LIBOR Is Set In London